DCT
3:25-cv-00866
Wavecel LLC v. Studson Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WaveCel, LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: Studson, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00866, D. Or., 05/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Oregon because Defendant Studson resides in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SHK-1 line of protective helmets infringes a patent related to impact absorption systems designed to mitigate rotational acceleration.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-layer liner systems in protective helmets that are designed to reduce the risk of brain injury by absorbing forces from oblique impacts.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2012. A Certificate of Correction, dated June 17, 2025, added a Government Support Clause to the patent, indicating the invention was developed with support from the National Institutes of Health, which grants the U.S. government certain rights in the invention.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-07-11 | Earliest Priority Date Claimed for ’987 Patent (U.S. Prov. App. 61/670,258) |
| 2020-11-17 | U.S. Patent No. 10,834,987 Issues |
| 2025-05-21 | Complaint Filed |
| 2025-06-17 | Certificate of Correction for ’987 Patent Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,834,987 - "Protective Liner for Helmets and Other Articles"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10834987, “Protective Liner for Helmets and Other Articles,” issued November 17, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that contemporary helmets are primarily designed to prevent skull fractures from direct impacts but are less effective at protecting the brain from rotational acceleration, which is caused by oblique impacts and is a primary driver of brain injury (Compl. ¶12; ’987 Patent, col. 2:28-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-component impact absorption system that acts as a “torsional suspension” to dampen rotational forces. It consists of an “anisotropic cellular liner” (e.g., a honeycomb structure) that is partially recessed within a rigid foam liner. An intervening “barrier layer” allows the cellular liner to both slide relative to the foam liner and compress in-plane upon an oblique impact, thereby absorbing rotational energy that would otherwise be transferred to the wearer’s head (’987 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-34). Figure 1B of the patent illustrates this dual-action mechanism of sliding and compression (’987 Patent, Fig. 1B).
- Technical Importance: The patent asserts that this "floating cellular liner" design achieves an "unprecedented level of impact absorption" for rotational forces compared to prior technologies like simple slip liners or non-floating honeycomb inserts (’987 Patent, col. 7:21-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- An anisotropic cellular liner with compressive stiffness that is lower in-plane than out-of-plane;
- A rigid foam liner;
- A barrier layer between the two liners that prevents the cellular liner from penetrating the foam liner;
- The anisotropic cellular liner is at least partially recessed in a recess within the rigid foam liner;
- The cellular liner and recess are sized so the liner is confined and retained by a “friction fit”;
- The barrier layer facilitates relative sliding of the cellular liner within the recess.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 1," implicitly reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are a series of protective helmets referred to as the SHK-1 (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the SHK-1 helmet contains a multi-part internal structure comprising four green, honeycomb portions set within a charcoal grey foam structure (Compl. ¶¶27-28). A photograph provided in the complaint shows these green honeycomb sections, identified as the "anisotropic cellular liners," sitting inside the grey foam structure (Compl. p. 8). The complaint further alleges the presence of a black plastic barrier layer between the honeycomb and foam liners (Compl. ¶29). A photograph shows this black layer in the recess after the green honeycomb liner has been removed, allegedly to demonstrate its location and function (Compl. p. 9). The complaint does not provide detail on the product's market positioning.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an anisotropic cellular liner with a compressive stiffness that is lower in-plane than out-of-plane; | The SHK-1 helmet’s "four green, honeycomb portions" are alleged to be anisotropic cellular liners with the claimed stiffness properties. | ¶27 | col. 7:43-45 |
| a rigid foam liner; | The "charcoal grey colored structure" in the SHK-1 helmet is alleged to be a rigid foam liner. | ¶28 | col. 7:46 |
| a barrier layer between the anisotropic cellular liner and the rigid foam liner, wherein the barrier layer prevents penetration of the anisotropic cellular liner into the rigid foam liner, | A "black plastic barrier" is alleged to exist between the honeycomb and foam liners, which "prevents the green honeycomb section... from penetrating the foam beneath it." | ¶¶29-30 | col. 7:47-col. 8:2 |
| wherein the anisotropic cellular liner is at least partially recessed in a recess formed in the rigid foam liner, | The green honeycomb liner is alleged to be "at least partially recessed in a recess formed in the rigid foam liner." | ¶31 | col. 8:3-4 |
| wherein the anisotropic cellular liner and the recess are sized such that the anisotropic cellular liner is confined and retained in the recess of the rigid foam liner by a friction fit, | The liner and recess are allegedly sized so that the liner is "confined and retained in the recess of the rigid foam liner by a friction fit." A photo shows the liner installed. (Compl. p. 10). | ¶31 | col. 8:5-9 |
| and wherein the barrier layer facilitates relative sliding of the anisotropic cellular liner within the recess of the rigid foam liner and with respect to the rigid foam liner. | The "black, plastic barrier layer" is alleged to facilitate this relative sliding. | ¶32 | col. 8:9-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The complaint alleges that the barrier layer "facilitates relative sliding" (Compl. ¶32), a key functional requirement of the claim. A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that this sliding actually occurs during an impact as theorized by the patent, and that the accused barrier layer's properties are designed to facilitate it, rather than it being an incidental or non-functional component.
- Scope Question: The claim requires the liner to be retained by a "friction fit." The patent specification describes this as a "snug" fit that obviates the need for "additional fasteners, adhesive etc." (’987 Patent, col. 3:60-64). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused product's method of retention meets this specific definition, raising the question of whether other forces or minor adhesive/mechanical features contribute to retaining the liner.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "friction fit"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the specific mechanism for retaining the cellular liner within the foam liner. The infringement case could hinge on whether the interface between the components in the SHK-1 helmet meets this limitation, as opposed to being secured by adhesive, snaps, or other means excluded by the patent’s description.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any retention method that relies on friction between surfaces without a separate mechanical fastener or chemical bond.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides a potential definition, stating the "cellular liner is sized to fit snug within the recess and to be retained within the recess as a friction fit with the shell or foam" and that this is achieved "without the necessity of using additional fasteners, adhesive etc." (’987 Patent, col. 3:60-64). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of interference fit.
The Term: "anisotropic cellular liner"
Context and Importance: This is the core inventive component responsible for absorbing rotational energy. Its definition, including the types of structures and materials it covers, is fundamental to the patent's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the liner can be comprised of various materials, including "cardboard or paper pulp, various synthetic or natural foams, plastic, polymers, and the like" (’987 Patent, col. 4:16-19), which may support an interpretation not limited to a specific material.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments heavily emphasize structures with "hexagonal cell geometry" or "auxetic cell geometry" (’987 Patent, col. 5:50-55). A defendant might argue that the term, read in light of the specification, should be construed to require such organized, repeating cellular structures as depicted, rather than any material that is merely "anisotropic."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks judgment for inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. p. 11, ¶B), but the complaint's factual allegations do not specify the acts or knowledge required to support these claims.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Studson’s infringement "is and has been willful and with full knowledge of the ’987 Patent" (Compl. ¶35). The complaint does not, however, provide a factual basis for this allegation, such as a pre-suit notice letter or other evidence of when or how Studson became aware of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the term "friction fit," described in the patent as a snug fit obviating the need for adhesives or fasteners, be construed to read on the specific manner in which the green honeycomb components are secured within the foam liner of the accused SHK-1 helmet?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functionality: what evidence will be presented to prove that the accused helmet’s components perform the functions required by the claims? Specifically, does the black plastic layer in the SHK-1 helmet measurably "facilitate relative sliding" of the honeycomb liner during an oblique impact, or is there a mismatch between the claimed dynamic function and the accused product's static design?